|
Hi Mandov17
I'm slightly confused why this was posted in legal studies. I did some research on the matter, but it doesn't answer the question technically. Maybe you'll find it helpful (see attachments found below)
If I find anything else, I'll keep you posted --
Some more information:
The fundamental concept behind the early biological theories was the belief that individual difference could be scientifically measured.
2. Early biological theories view criminal behavior as the result of a defect in the individual. This defect can be biological or genetic in nature, and serves to separate the criminal from the law-abiding citizen. Contemporary biological theories concentrate more on variations in genetic and other biological factors in interaction with the environment, and are less likely to refer to biological defects or abnormalities.
3. Punishment serves a different goal in biological theories. While punishment may be appropriate to protect society, it will not have a deterrent effect. Because there is an inherent defect or abnormality within the individual, deterrence or the threat of punishment will not affect behavior.
4. Although early biological theories lacked validity, they were among the first to use the scientific method. The process of measuring body parts, shapes, and sizes (although flawed) represented a dramatic shift from the philosophical approach offered by the classical school.
5. Biological theories trace back to Lombroso, and vary in the amount of determinism built in. Atavistic man or the “born criminal” was always going to be at odds with civilized society. More modern biological theories seek to establish a link between things like IQ, testosterone, and criminality. While they share a biological link, modern theories understand that the influences of choice and the larger society also play a role in the crime dynamic.
6. If traditional biological theories are correct, then society is limited in its responses to offenders. There are five basic responses. First, we could try to fix the offender. This may be accomplished through medication, treatment, or therapy. Second, we could lock the offender up and keep him or her physically separated from larger society. Third, we could sterilize the offender. This would keep individuals from passing along defective genes to future generations. Fourth, we could deport or
banish the offender. Finally, we could choose to kill the offender. If crime is truly biologically determined, these options, or close derivatives of these options, would prove more useful than any punishment designed to remove the pleasure from a criminal act.
7. More recent biological or biosocial theories believe that even if some biological traits are passed down that would make an individual more predisposed to commit criminal acts, these traits can be dealt with through effective social programs. Having a biological trait, then, is not the end of the story. It does not doom one to a life of crime, and can in fact be dealt with and managed.
|
Quick Reply
